LOL the higher-ups REALLY need to stop giving interviews about game design choices. I'm not down on the game at all, and even I think this pretzel logic is annoying:
“In the past, we’ve used the Exp. Share system and, more recently, you were able to disable it and limit the experience gain to a single Pokemon. Yet we noticed that many players were leaving the Exp. Share system set to ‘ON’. Seeing this, we started to wonder if there really was a need for players to be able to turn it off – if there was value in it as a gameplay feature. Of course, we discussed the fact that some players only wanted to train one Pokemon at a time, but what arose from our talks is that if players wanted to do this, why not bring only one Pokemon with them? … in order to remove the need for the off switch, why not allow them to change their team anywhere and at any time? This way, if they only want to have one Pokemon at their side and focus on leveling it up, they can; otherwise they can have a full team, training them all at once and thus having an easier time. So, rather than focusing on Exp. Share, we concentrated on team composition.”
I'm a big WoW player, and that explanation reminds me of stuff the WoW devs have been doing for the past few years lol Basically, take a simple solution, get rid of it, and come up with a totally cray backwards solution/explanation that further alters core gameplay than was ever necessary.
The game is full of odd decisions, like the skip cut scene option. You go to the menu and either select skipping all of the scenes or just watch them all with no option to skip as they being played like most games.
@Snaplocket Ah, damn, I meant to say Platinum Games, not Monolith. My bad.
As for Pokémon: if Game Freak and Creature would be against it, there's no way that Nintendo would be able to make a Pokémon game on their own, unless they would either have to buy out the other two parties, or if the other two would indeed be on board with the idea. Otherwise, Nintendo would just be outvoted by the other two. That's basically also the point (and the benefit) of a joint venture.
And honestly, I don't think Nintendo is going to buy them out, because they'll need their expertise for many years to come, and there's also quite a few business-related benefits to keeping The Pokémon Company a separate entity from Nintendo itself.
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@Galenmereth That is a good break-down. And reveals the game is more polished than people have been led to believe.
No mention of these horrible frame drops in the Wild Area that were supposedly happening all the time. There's drops when you run into enemies, which doesn't matter anyway, given how the screen momentarily fragments, but otherwise it stays around 30fps.
Resolution, at max, is higher than either Xenoblade or Zelda in docked mode (except in the most demanding areas, where it drops to just a tad under what Zelda sits at in the best of times). Portable drops to just under 600p in demanding, open areas, but usually sits around 720p, which explains why the game looks so good on Switch Lite.
Shadow work takes a decent step up in quality as well.
Praise for the lighting as well, which I really agree with. It's well done.
He also likes the increased scale of the environments.
Putting aside the editorializing about Dexit and his disappointment that he can't enter most buildings (nothing new for a Pokemon game, and for many RPGs in general), the downsides seem to be some low-res textures in the Wild Area, a lack of anti-aliasing, and, most glaringly, the terrible pop-in. Which... yeah. The pop-in is really noticeable. Bad draw distance. I agree.
And the animations, which, weirdly, don't really get any attention. They're very robotic.
Overall, though? When you subtract the disappointment about the lack of a national dex and the non-interactive environments, things are looking good for SwSh. The biggest complaint seems to be that it isn't a technical achievement on the level of Zelda or Xenoblade, which... yeah. I wasn't expecting. And it's a much better title to play portably than Xenoblade, which looked awful in handheld mode.
@Harmonie Putting Pokemon in the box and taking them out only works as long as you don't want to switch into something else mid battle. Even if you're training just one Pokemon, you'll probably need to use a backup occasionally. So even their convoluted method doesn't work as it used to do.
@Snaplocket@ThanosReXXX Pokemon is a weird franchise, and I don't think it can exist if not all companies cooperate. TPC technically owns the franchise. Of couse, Nintendo, GameFreak and Creatures all have equal stakes in TPC. However, Nintendo also owns some of the trademarks, so not everything is owned by TPC. GameFreak doesn't really own anything at all. They just get to make the games, they sometimes try something different, but why would they even bother?
@Galenmereth Well, there was customization in Sun and Moon as well, but I agree that they did a good job expanding on it here. It's probably meaningless, but I love changing up the look of my character. Who knew Pokemon would become such a good dress-up game.
At this point, I'd like to see them pull an Animal Crossing and stop arbitrarily locking clothing and hair-styles down to specific genders. Let people accessorize however they like.
It's weird: the draw distance issue legitimately doesn't bother me. I think it's because I've trained myself to see it in other games as well, and it has become something that isn't a big deal to me. I dialed down the draw distance in The Witcher 3 for performance gains, for example: it's a lot more noticeable, but the game is so smooth that I don't even care.
Resolution and framerate are the big things for me, and they hold up really well here.
Things aren't perfect, but I legitimately don't understand the hysterical crying about these games at this point, now that I have one of them in my hands.
That's the weird thing. In a game where they want you to find and catch creatures, they give you a controllable camera, but you can't see them more than 10 metres away anyway.
@Ralizah hah, the first thing I bought was a new hat, and when I reached the first town I changed my whole outfit before I even looked into getting more Pokeballs.
I have noticed a few graphical glitches here and there, but definitely nothing significant enough to detract from the game. I think everything looks fantastic, and probably my only gripe would be having no voice actors. Heck, I’d have settled for sounds when characters are talking like they have done in Zelda games. As is, it’s a bit off-putting when someone is talking and it’s completely silent.
@Maelwolf
Don't forget if we used to be watching 1920's silent movies.
Kinda awkward to watch conversations without real voices.
Imagine if all events or conversations on Pokemon Sword / Shield edited like 1920's style, Black and White color, add with Ragtime piano play and the whole texts pop up to explain what did they say. 😆
@Octane All true, and as far as having a say in things go, I actually forgot the share holders, so none of the three companies will actually own a full third of TPC.
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@Harmonie Putting Pokemon in the box and taking them out only works as long as you don't want to switch into something else mid battle. Even if you're training just one Pokemon, you'll probably need to use a backup occasionally. So even their convoluted method doesn't work as it used to do.
Yeah, the thing about training an individual Pokemon is that it is weak and you need other Pokemon to back up when it gets knocked out. And I don't know if it's just me, but that really seems to happen more in more recent Pokemon games. My Pokemon end up getting knocked out a lot when I don't expect it.
@Snaplocket True, but that wasn't exactly my point in naming them. The confusion over what company is owned by Nintendo and/or is a first party developer, is. But I guess we've pretty much covered most if not all there is to say about it. I'm personally still thinking about getting one of the Pokémon games or not, which has nothing to do with all the commotion, but more with me also having a list of other games I'd like to buy, and me not being such a hardcore fan of the franchise that I must own EVERY game in the series, the which is why I've not yet decided, so we'll see, and I'll also reserve judgment on it until that day arrives, which will probably be somewhere around the end of December, after Christmas, when I usually use my saved up cash, to give myself an extra couple of holiday gifts.
Octane All true, and as far as having a say in things go, I actually forgot the share holders, so none of the three companies will actually own a full third of TPC.
I think people are focusing on who owns what percentage of The Pokémon Company too much as it doesn't actually mean they can then control the Pokémon brand. A share in a company means having a vote on who is on the board of directors (who in turn make the decisions) and getting dividends payments from them and not much else in the grand scheme of things.
In any case The Pokémon Company doesn't actually own the copyright to Pokémon (that's owned by Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures), The Pokémon Company just manages the brand since the franchise is so big and it's easier that way for the three companies.
@jump Erm... The Pokémon Company IS Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures, as I already explained earlier. It's the umbrella company under which their joint venture was created, in order to make Pokémon games and content.
Oh, and share holders definitely do have a say in certain things, not just in who sits where or decides what in a company. If the share holders don't like a company's plans, then they can most certainly do something to prevent that from happening.
@Snaplocket Meh... semantics. I do consider it a gift (or a treat), since it'll be bought with money from my Christmas bonus. Money that's already a gift in and of itself, so it's not a regular purchase for me.
'The console wars are like boobs: Sony and Microsoft fight over which ones look the nicest and Nintendo's are the most fun to play with.'
@rallydefault
Thank you. And yes, for regular gamers like us, I think it’s an excellent entry point into the mainline series and really, for anyone whose perspective isn’t skewed by emotion. Not to say there aren’t valid criticisms (there are always a laundry list you can come up with for any Pokémon game) it’s just that the response to those criticisms and the claims of how much they impact enjoyment, have largely been exaggerated.
I just fired up Pokémon Let’s Go a minute ago (thought my Pokeball Plus wasn’t working but, turns out it only connects in game). And the contrast between that game and this one is pretty noticeable. Sword actually looks a fair bit better. And I thought Lets Go was actually a good looking game.
The QoL improvements are really the star of the show though. At the end of the day, it’s a Pokémon game. If you’ve seen one before you know what you’re getting. Only this time it’s HD, you can move in more than 8 directions, and there’s a bevy of QoL improvements that make it a much smoother experience to enjoy. And of course there’s the wild lands if you’re up for a binge, roaming around to catch visible Pokémon and playing with others online (not my thing, but I figure the younger crowd will probably appreciate it).
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
jump Erm... The Pokémon Company IS Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures, as I already explained earlier. It's the umbrella company under which their joint venture was created, in order to make Pokémon games and content.
Oh, and share holders definitely do have a say in certain things, not just in who sits where or decides what in a company. If the share holders don't like a company's plans, then they can most certainly do something to prevent that from happening.
What you have been describing The Pokémon Company is in terms of ownership is that of a subsidiary company which is different to a joint venture.
The Pokémon Company doesn't make games and never had, the role was has always been management and licencing. Grab your copy of Sword/Shield and look at the back, copyrights are Nintendo, Game Freak and Creatures but not The Pokémon Company.
Share holders don't have a direct influence over a company's actions, whilst the company acts in the shareholder "best interest" they aren't the same as a stakeholder who can dictate things.
Forums
Topic: Pokemon Sword & Shield
Posts 1,921 to 1,940 of 3,072
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic